Search results
63 items found for ""
Pages (43)
- About | Brainbox Institute
Brainbox is a public interest think tank and consultancy sitting at the intersection of technology, law, and policy. Bringing together deep thinking, broad networks, and world-class expertise, Brainbox has rapidly established a global profile as a leader in this area. Founded in 2018, organisations across the private and public sectors worldwide have relied on our knowledge, insight, and professionalism. Brainbox analysts and affiliates are accomplished media commentators and presenters. Our analysts are regular participants at a range of public policy events, and their work has been published or covered in Lawfare, the Guardian, Stuff, Newshub, the New Zealand Herald, Newstalk ZB, RNZ, Newsroom, Business Desk, TVNZ, and the Project. We work together with clients to figure out what they need to know, give them the answer, and help them leverage it to meet their objectives. > Our Team Tom Barraclough Founder, Director To m co-founded the Brainbox Institute in 2018 and graduated BA/LLB(Hons) from the University of Otago. When he began his career in 2014, he initially focused on human rights and medico-legal systems, contributing to peer-reviewed publications and nationally significant research on access to justice and accessibility for disabled people. Since 2018, Tom has spearheaded public interest legal research projects, as well as advising both public and private clients on intricate public policy issues at the intersection of law and technology. Tom has a special interest in human rights approaches to platform regulation and combating disinformation, as well as how to build digital systems to better give effect to public policy objectives, including through partner venture Syncopate Lab. Allyn Robins Brainbox Fellow Allyn guides the organisation's synthetic media and AI-focused initiatives, and remains a key part of many other projects. Prior to starting with Brainbox he worked as an intelligence analyst at the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, where he founded the Emerging Technologies portfolio and played a key role in coordinating efforts to allow New Zealand to navigate an increasingly technologically sophisticated world. He is a highly sought-after expert, offering insightful commentary for leading media outlets like Newshub, Stuff, and Lawfare. Allyn holds a Master’s degree in Physics and Bachelor’s degrees in Philosophy and Theatre, which has been a more useful combination than you might think. Ellen Strickland Director Ellen brings almost two decades of global experience on Internet policy and digital governance issues to the Brainbox Institute. She is known as a passionate champion for collaborative, informed approaches to technology related policy and practice. Ellen has worked on a broad spectrum of issues and processes, from infrastructure development to digital inclusion to content moderation, and she has engaged from across sectors, including as a technical community leader, academic, civil society advocate, government official, and company founder. Ellen holds a PhD from the University of Queensland, which focused on Pacific Islands multilateral digital policy. She also has received a Masters in Communications from Victoria University Wellington and a Masters in International Development, specialising in research methods, from the University of Manchester. > Our Purpose Technology, law and policy are powerful systems, and they can be even more powerful when they interact. When carefully designed, these systems have the potential to support human flourishing and change the world for the better. But they can also be clumsy, confusing, and, at worst, cause great harm. We want a world where technology, law and policy work for people, not against them. > Our Mission We are a public interest think tank and consultancy sitting at the intersection of technology, law, and policy. Public and private sector clients approach us with problems that live in this intersection, and we provide them with the right questions, the right answers, and the tools to use them. We are independent, pragmatic thinkers, and we believe in the power of sharing knowledge for the benefit of the public. > Our Values Human Dignity Systems are nothing without people, and creating effective systems requires strong, respectful relationships and collaboration. A commitment to human dignity and flourishing is front of mind in everything we do and how we operate as an organisation. Creative & Entrepreneurial We are nimble and flexible in a way that many other similar organisations aspire to be. We can zoom out and connect the dots, and pivot rapidly when necessary. We think creatively, holistically, and pragmatically. Critical Thinking We strive to look beyond ideology, hype, and rhetoric. We take pride in recognising – and saying – when we or others are asking the wrong question. We always aim to tell the truth as we see it, not just say what people want to hear. Diversity and Heterogeneity A variety of ideas and viewpoints are better than groupthink, and we always prefer productive disagreement to negotiate differences, rather than bad faith debate. Integrity Our solutions are designed to work with or without our ongoing involvement, and we will never undermine a project’s goals to make more work for ourselves in the future.
- Law Policy Technology | Brainbox Institute
Law. Tech. Policy. We conn ect the dots. You and your team might be experts in one of these spaces. But fluency in all three is rare, and time is scarce. That’s where we come in. Here’s how we can help Advice on the stakeholder landscape and navigating multi-stakeholder processes. Leading tricky discussions - both publicly and privately. Building your conceptual understanding of new technologies, or concepts in the legal system. Designing, analysing and describing public policy, legal systems, and digital systems. Desktop research and verbal or written summaries. A constructive place to test your thinking, or a first draft to get you started. Creating software and digital solutions for implementing your objectives, including through work with your existing partners. We are small and nimble to support systems that must necessarily be large and slow. There’s a place in the world for hierarchies and pyramids, but sometimes emerging issues need a different approach. We’ll tell you what you need to know, and make suggestions for how to use that knowledge. Clear communication, efficient operation, and treating everyone with respect for the unique knowledge and experience they bring. Let’s talk. > Contact us Who we’ve worked with Home: Clients
- Appropriate frameworks for social media analysis: Report for the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (NZ) | Brainbox Institute
< Back Appropriate frameworks for social media analysis: Report for the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (NZ) Past Project June 2022 Recent years have seen growing demand from some members of the New Zealand public and media for increased government capture and analysis of internet-based communications occurring via social media websites and apps. These demands began in earnest in the wake of the 15 March 2019 Christchurch Terror Attacks and were reinvigorated throughout the Covid-19 pandemic period, peaking in proximity to the prolonged occupation of the lawn outside Parliament. In this report prepared for New Zealand's Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, we argue that government faces unique ethical, legal, and practical challenges in monitoring and responding to mis- and disinformation. As such, we make the case for the establishment and support of a diverse, multidisciplinary civil society-led institution to conduct ongoing independent analysis of social media-based communications for the purpose of monitoring and analysing potential disinformation and misinformation. Access the report Back to Projects Previous Next
Blog Posts (20)
- Will a new bill save the New Zealand news media from extinction?
Ximena Smith, Communications Lead and Senior Consultant The crisis we are currently seeing in the news media was on full display yesterday morning during the oral submissions to a parliamentary select committee for the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill. “It is a real fight for survival for us”, TVNZ’s executive editor Phil O’Sullivan said. Sinead Boucher, owner of Stuff, warned that the news media’s ability to help keep New Zealand “free of corruption and our societies healthy” is currently in “great peril”. Some of the figures raised by submitters helped expose the dire reality of this crisis: NZ Geographic publisher James Frankham said magazine advertising revenue had fallen from $210m to $117m since 2012, and chair of the Radio Broadcasters Association Jana Rangooni predicted that, unless some intervention happens, all commercial media would go extinct in the next decade. While a range of perspectives were aired yesterday on what should be done to rectify the situation, there was little disagreement about why the news media is in this position: in essence, the digital age has disrupted the business models of news media, and now, they are struggling to compete with global tech platforms like Google and Meta for digital ad revenue. It’s this competitive relationship between news media and big tech that the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill targets. Simply put, the bill would compel digital platforms to negotiate commercial deals with news companies, in order to try to balance the scales financially and to ensure the future viability of the New Zealand news media. “People should have to pay for using content” A key premise of the bill is the argument that tech giants use news media content from kiwi outlets for their own commercial benefit without paying for it. For example, a number of news company submitters complained about the impact of ‘zero click searches’, where search engines like Google scrape and summarise information from webpages – like news sites – to answer users’ search queries without having to click away from the search engine. Another example that came up in submissions was the use of news content to train generative AI models, with no compensation paid to news outlets. Michael Boggs, Chief Executive of NZME, likened this to radio stations playing music on air: if they want to play a song, then they have to pay a licence fee. “You have to pay royalties, it’s a no-brainer. People should have to pay for using content.” Stuff’s Sinead Boucher put it more bluntly, describing generative AI products as “no more than modern day succubi”. However, this logic can go both ways. Digital platforms like Facebook and Google unquestionably provide news outlets with free referral traffic. While some media executives downplayed the importance of this traffic during their submission, the fact of the matter is that news outlets do have the option to opt-out from having snippets of their content displayed on digital platforms – and yet, they have chosen not to do so. The reason for this comes down to another point raised by several submitters, which is the huge amount of control that big global tech platforms have over New Zealand’s digital infrastructure. At the end of the day, the news media needs big tech more than the other way around. New Zealand media isn’t alone in this power imbalance with digital platforms – for example, we’re currently seeing the same dynamic play out in Canada, where a similar bill has recently gone into effect. Rather than coming to the bargaining table, Meta has dug its heels in and blocked news links from appearing on its platform for Canadian users, insisting that it doesn’t need this content in order to be commercially successful. The Copyright Act Former District Court Judge David Harvey suggested in his submission that news outlets already do have a tool at their disposal for dealing with tech giants using New Zealand news content: the Copyright Act. However, some newsroom executives dismissed this as an option. In her submission as President of the News Publishers’ Association, Sinead Boucher said the Copyright Act was not a viable option for New Zealand newsrooms dealing with this issue, as it “plunged people into endless litigation with the biggest media companies in the world." Another reason for newsrooms’ hesitancy to pursue this in the courts is probably because it’s unclear whether a case would actually succeed. For example, newsrooms will be closely watching the current copyright lawsuits against OpenAI in the US. Just this week, a court partially dismissed two lawsuits brought by authors against the artificial intelligence company for copyright infringement, with the judge saying that the authors had not sufficiently demonstrated that there was “substantial similarity” between ChatGPT’s output and their copyrighted works. While commentators have noted the New York Times’ case against OpenAI appears to be strong, as they have clear evidence of ChatGPT outputs regurgitating some of their stories verbatim, a judgement could still conceivably go either way. It’s understandable, then, that New Zealand newsrooms are backing the Fair News Digital Bargaining Bill instead of potentially expensive litigation, as the Bill could provide them with a more certain method of revenue sharing with digital platforms. However, the problem is that this bill wouldn’t do anything to address the aforementioned reliance that New Zealand media has on digital platforms – in fact, it would make them even more reliant on these platforms, as it would firmly establish the platforms as a critical source of funding. Another way? Ultimately, the weakness of this bill is that it tries to bring a copyright-based argument to a markets and competition problem. Instead, a stronger approach would treat these issues as separate, and would address the root cause of the underlying power imbalance without making media dependent on the platforms for income. For example, one alternative could be a bill that breaks-up the dominance digital platforms have in the online advertising market. This strategy is already being tested in other jurisdictions; for example, The Competition and Transparency in Digital Advertising Act in the US could be a useful blueprint for New Zealand lawmakers keen to bring greater transparency and competition to New Zealand’s digital advertising market, and to level the playing field between the global tech titans and local media players. Of course, breaking up concentration in digital advertising would not be a silver bullet to the woes of the New Zealand media industry. Other options also need to be considered – for example, despite some of the negative optics of the Public Interest Journalism Fund, the government shouldn’t completely dismiss ways in which public funds can be distributed at-arms-length towards public-interest media, in ways that build public trust. Right now, it’s indisputable that the media is at a crisis point, and there will be dire consequences for democracy if local media outlets were to collapse. But as policymakers now deliberate upon solutions, their focus must pivot towards fostering a resilient, competitive, and autonomous news ecosystem – one that steers clear of overreliance on major tech platforms for sustenance.
- The Brainbox Institute Welcomes Dr Ellen Strickland, Begins Transition to Non-Profit Structure
Tom Barraclough, Founder and Director I’m excited to announce two significant developments for the Brainbox Institute today. Since Brainbox was founded in 2018, the design, development, deployment and governance of the internet, artificial intelligence and other technologies has only become more important. Based on our work during that time, and the positive response we’ve received, we strongly believe there’s an important place for an organisation like Brainbox in the domestic and international landscape. To grow in the way we want to, and to deal with the topics we want to address, we’re going to need a different approach. On that basis, Brainbox is beginning a gradual transition toward a non-profit structure over the next 12 months. This shift will formalise our existing values and commitment to the public interest while opening up new opportunities to produce public goods that explore the impacts of technology on individuals, communities and society: communications, consulting, engagement, research, analysis, and education. Values-driven consulting remains a core component of what we offer. We are committed to ensuring our work is grounded in practical realities, and advising and empowering businesses, government agencies and other clients on technology regulation and governance, while also expanding our capacity for public-interest research and initiatives as a think tank. I’m also delighted to share that Dr Ellen Strickland will be joining the organisation as a Director, working alongside me to help lead this transition. Ellen is an expert in internet governance and technology related policy, and she brings fantastic experience in academic research, working with government, and leadership roles within technical and civil society organisations. She has a strong vision for what the Brainbox Institute could become with a firm eye toward both domestic and international landscapes, and I’m very excited to have her join us. None of this would be possible without the vision and commitment of the existing team, who have been part of shaping this decision and are enthusiastic about Brainbox’s evolution. From AI governance to digital trade to online information ecosystems, the internet and digital technologies are shaping every dimension of society. I’m confident that the Brainbox Institute can become an anchor point for engaging proactively on these issues, bringing an international perspective to New Zealand, and a New Zealand-based perspective to the world. We believe in the potential of technology for empowerment - for individuals, communities, industries, and New Zealand as a whole. We want to be a good partner to existing actors, and to empower other organisations to take a more active role. We want to create a space for dialogue and discussion across stakeholder groups, as well as an avenue for nurturing coming generations of technology leaders. I encourage you to reach out to me, Ellen, or the Brainbox team with any questions, suggestions, or collaborations you’d like to explore. You can learn more about Ellen here, and contact us via the website here. We’re excited for what this next chapter will bring.
- Global Digital Compact (GDC) presents critical opportunity for NZ
Discussions at the United Nations this week on the Global Digital Compact (GDC) present a critical opportunity for New Zealand to play a key role internationally in shaping digital governance. The Global Digital Compact is incredibly important to both Aotearoa and the future of the internet as a whole. New Zealand is working toward growing its technology sector, and our geographic isolation means the Internet is vital. Digital technologies also dominate national discussions, and we think more New Zealanders should be empowered to participate in those discussions. We know that New Zealand can also play an important role in the international community. We’re experienced at navigating difficult geopolitical landscapes, and have direct experience of both the immense benefits and terrible costs of the Internet and digital technologies. At present, the GDC will have two long-lasting impacts The GDC will have far-reaching implications for the unified global Internet, with substantial economic, political, and social repercussions for New Zealand and New Zealanders. First, it will send a strong signal to national governments about what kinds of actions are legitimate to respond to digital technologies and their impacts. Key topics include things like child safety, disinformation, and artificial intelligence. This will have significant implications for issues like freedom of expression, privacy, and encryption globally. Second, it will shape how governance of the Internet, AI and digital technologies evolves in the coming decades, which is currently governed collaboratively by states, companies, non-government entities (civil society), international organisations, and the technical community. A good start, but needs work While the current draft is heading in the right direction, there is more work to be done. Crucially, text on topics like Artificial Intelligence, multistakeholder governance, and nebulous concepts like “disinformation” and “safety” all need greater clarification and refinement. Artificial Intelligence The GDC treats AI like a special category, rather than like any other digital technology. While the impacts and capabilities of AI may be daunting, the GDC shouldn’t treat it like science fiction. Multistakeholder Governance While expressing support for the existing Internet Governance model, the GDC must resolve some lingering ambiguities that point in the opposite direction. In addition, meaningful participation by civil society in governance processes is unrealistic without adequate access to resourcing. “Disinformation”, “safety”, etc Substantial limitations on human rights can be imposed in the name of safety, and talk of “eliminating” disinformation risks profound limitations on freedom of expression. There needs to be some way of narrowing down these concepts and limiting what can be done in response. For more information For more detail, you can access our position statement below. Interactive digital tool We've also incorporated our comments into an interactive digital version of the GDC using software from Syncopate Lab.